Suicide by Genpact executive raises ‘shooting the messenger’ concerns

Apart from the committee members, the two accusers are also among those reportedly booked for abetment.

“Temporary suspension of an employee under investigation is a precautionary measure," a Genpact spokesperson said.

NEW DELHI: The suicide by a senior executive of Genpact after allegations of sexual harassment against him has raised some fundamental questions for India Inc. While experts underline the importance of following due diligence and procedures and educating employees, they also raise concerns over internal complaints committee (IC) members being reportedly booked for abetment to suicide, calling this a case of shooting the messenger.

A few months after the #MeToo storm hit Indian workplaces and shifted the pendulum slightly toward the reporting of sexual harassment cases, the incident has put the issue back into focus. Experts are of the view that conducting an inquiry cannot be termed abetment.

“The committee is only discharging its duty. Once a sexual harassment complaint is received, it’s a statutory mandate to conduct an inquiry,” said lawyer Sonal Mattoo, who is on the internal complaints committees of several organisations, including Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd, the publisher of ET. “Conducting an inquiry as per due procedure cannot be considered as abetment to suicide. Discharge of duty is not abetment.”

The process of inquiry should be neutral, with an opportunity given to both parties, while protecting the complainant from any retaliation, said Mattoo. “The risk is high, with parties attacking ICC members, who are merely discharging their duties,” she said. “It’s a classic case of shoot the messenger.”

Apart from the committee members, the two accusers are also among those reportedly booked for abetment. The employee is reported to have denied the allegations in his suicide note.

“Abetting someone’s death is a serious allegation and I don’t think the internal complaints committee of a company can take responsibility for the case,” said Nirmala Menon, founder, Interweave Consulting.

Menon explains: “Suspension pending inquiry does not automatically translate into a confirmation of the act. The respondent is always referred to as an ‘alleged’ perpetrator and guilt is fixed only after the inquiry. There are situations where, after inquiry, the ICC may find the case unsubstantiated or even ‘not guilty’. And, even if found guilty, the punishment is always in proportion to the gravity of the offence.”

Also, the identities of all those involved are kept strictly confidential while the inquiry is on.

Responding to ET’s queries, a Genpact spokesperson said: “Temporary suspension of an employee under investigation is a precautionary measure. This is done to ensure that an investigation can take place in an unhindered manner. The continued presence of the employee could have impeded the investigation process, especially since the allegations are grave, there is a difference in seniority, and the complainant expressed fear due to continued contact. Genpact has a zero-tolerance policy towards any behaviour that impairs the safety of the workspace. Our policies are in accordance with law and therefore following the law cannot be construed as a breach of law.”

It is a common practice to bar the alleged perpetrator from interacting with the complainant and the right to suspend is a decision the ICC has the authority to make, said Menon. “Any PoSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) related investigation follows the principles of natural justice and is a fair and transparent process where both parties are given equal opportunity to bring their defences for a fair hearing.”

Archana Bisht, director, 1to1Help.net, an employee assistance provider, said: “The incident is extremely unfortunate. The entire probe in a sexual harassment case needs to be carried with full confidentiality. If due diligence and do cumentation were done, and disciplinary action was taken (on the) basis (of) that, then the company was just adopting a zero-tolerance approach to the case, which it should under the regulations. It's a tough situation for everybody involved.”

There are certain conditions where the respondent’s presence can pose a threat to the complainant or impact the inquiry due to intimidation, retaliation or threat. In such situations, asking the respondent to stay away from the workplace is valid. It is never done in a flippant manner and we exercise caution at all times, according to Mattoo.

“In my view, sending a respondent on leave if the complainant wishes to stay in the office pending closure of inquiry is a better option than suspension as it protects the salary of the respondent and keeps the environment neutral without holding the incident substantiated before an inquiry concludes,” Mattoo added.

Experts call for more caution and discretion besides stressing the need to educate employees. “There is still poor understanding of what constitutes sexual abuse, consent, sexual harassment and rape, and given the varied cultural contexts people come from, regular education and reiteration of expected behaviours at work is critical,” said Menon.

Mattoo urged firms to consider putting mechanisms in place to protect ICC members, such as providing liability cover as is provided to directors and officers (D&O).

The # MeToo movement has compelled companies to take PoSH more seriously, according to Sriram V, CHRO of Bankbazaar. Corporates have to be more focused.

“PoSH is not just lip service or another compliance. It is not something that needs companies to maintain only in the registers/books,” he said.